Literature DB >> 23387126

Elk migration patterns and human activity influence wolf habitat use in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Abigail A Nelson1, Matthew J Kauffman, Arthur D Middleton, Michael D Jimenez, Douglas E McWhirter, Jarrett Barber, Kenneth Gerow.   

Abstract

Identifying the ecological dynamics underlying human-wildlife conflicts is important for the management and conservation of wildlife populations. In landscapes still occupied by large carnivores, many ungulate prey species migrate seasonally, yet little empirical research has explored the relationship between carnivore distribution and ungulate migration strategy. In this study, we evaluate the influence of elk (Cervus elaphus) distribution and other landscape features on wolf (Canis lupus) habitat use in an area of chronic wolf-livestock conflict in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, USA. Using three years of fine-scale wolf (n = 14) and elk (n = 81) movement data, we compared the seasonal habitat use of wolves in an area dominated by migratory elk with that of wolves in an adjacent area dominated by resident elk. Most migratory elk vacate the associated winter wolf territories each summer via a 40-60 km migration, whereas resident elk remain accessible to wolves year-round. We used a generalized linear model to compare the relative probability of wolf use as a function of GIS-based habitat covariates in the migratory and resident elk areas. Although wolves in both areas used elk-rich habitat all year, elk density in summer had a weaker influence on the habitat use of wolves in the migratory elk area than the resident elk area. Wolves employed a number of alternative strategies to cope with the departure of migratory elk. Wolves in the two areas also differed in their disposition toward roads. In winter, wolves in the migratory elk area used habitat close to roads, while wolves in the resident elk area avoided roads. In summer, wolves in the migratory elk area were indifferent to roads, while wolves in resident elk areas strongly avoided roads, presumably due to the location of dens and summering elk combined with different traffic levels. Study results can help wildlife managers to anticipate the movements and establishment of wolf packs as they expand into areas with migratory or resident prey populations, varying levels of human activity, and front-country rangelands with potential for conflicts with livestock.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23387126     DOI: 10.1890/11-1829.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  6 in total

1.  Recolonizing wolves influence the realized niche of resident cougars.

Authors:  L Mark Elbroch; Patrick E Lendrum; Jesse Newby; Howard Quigley; Daniel J Thompson
Journal:  Zool Stud       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 2.058

2.  Different location sampling frequencies by satellite tags yield different estimates of migration performance: pooling data requires a common protocol.

Authors:  Alessandro Tanferna; Lidia López-Jiménez; Julio Blas; Fernando Hiraldo; Fabrizio Sergio
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Fine-scale harbour seal usage for informed marine spatial planning.

Authors:  Esther L Jones; Carol E Sparling; Bernie J McConnell; Christopher D Morris; Sophie Smout
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Seasonal foraging ecology of non-migratory cougars in a system with migrating prey.

Authors:  L Mark Elbroch; Patrick E Lendrum; Jesse Newby; Howard Quigley; Derek Craighead
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Managing more than the mean: using quantile regression to identify factors related to large elk groups.

Authors:  Angela Brennan; Paul C Cross; Scott Creel
Journal:  J Appl Ecol       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 6.528

6.  Response of pumas (Puma concolor) to migration of their primary prey in Patagonia.

Authors:  Maria L Gelin; Lyn C Branch; Daniel H Thornton; Andrés J Novaro; Matthew J Gould; Anthony Caragiulo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.